Judgment:
D.G.R. Patnaik, J.
1. This revision application has been filed against the order dated 3.9.1998 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad in M.P. Case No 35 of 1998 whereby a sum of Rs. 500 per month was awarded to the wife/opposite party No. 1 by way of her maintenance directing the petitioner to pay the same.
2. Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner, Learned Counsel for the State and Learned Counsel for the O.P. No. 1.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order of the learned Court below primarily on the ground that the learned Court below has seriously erred in failing to consider the fact that the opposite party No. 1 has wilfully withdrawn herself from the company and society of her husband, namely the present petitioner without there being any sufficient cause offered by her Learned Counsel explains that from the evidence adduced on record, it would transpire that after the Gauna ceremony, opposite party No. 1 was brought by the petitioner to his house to lead normal conjugal life. Where after, she herself left her matrimonial house and returned to the house of her parents. The petitioner had tried his level best expending all sincere efforts to bring back his wife to his house, but the lady had persistently refused to restore conjugal relations with him. Learned Counsel adds further that the learned Court below has further erred in failing to consider that the opposite party No. 1 has though claimed that the petitioner is a man of means owing substantial properties, but no reliable and cogent evidence in support of such contention has been adduced by her. In fact, learned Court below has itself acknowledged that the petitioner has no source of regular income and that he is a daily wage labourer. Yet, without considering the fact that the petitioner had never given any just and sufficient cause to the wife for living separate from him and without considering the fact that the petitioner has no source of income, the trial Court had proceeded to award the amount of maintenance against the petitioner, thereby causing grave injustice to him. Learned Counsel adds further that attempts were made both by the learned Court below as also by this Court for reconciliation between the spouses and though opposite party No. 1 had appeared at the reconciliation proceeding, but she had expressed her defiant attitude declaring that she has no more interest in restoring conjugal relation with the petitioner.
4. Learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 1 on the other hand, while inviting attention to the evidences adduced on behalf of the opposite party No. 1 at the trial Court, submits that within few days of her arrival at her matrimonial house after the marriage, the lady began to be subjected to ill-treatment and negligence on account of non-fulfilment of petitioner's demand of a sum of Rs. 20,000 by way of dowry and under such circumstances, the lady was compelled to leave her matrimonial house since further continuance in the company of the petitioner was fraught with danger to her life and person. Learned Counsel adds further that the marriage between the petitioner and the opposite party No. 1 was soleminezed according to Hindu rites and considering the reasons stated by her, she has every right to live separate from the company of her husband and the petitioner is bound to provide maintenance to her by virtue of opposite party No. 1 being his legally married wife.
5. From the impugned order of the learned trial Court, it appears that the learned trial Court had considered the evidences adduced on behalf of the opposite party No. 1 as also the evidence adduced by the petitioner. The trial Court had placed reliance on the testimony of the opposite party No. 1 and finding support from the testimony of her parents, has recorded its finding that refusal of the lady to live with her husband was not without just and sufficient cause. It further appears that the petitioner had raised the ground of lack of jurisdiction claiming that the trial Court had no jurisdiction to entertain petition for maintenance. It appears that this ground was rejected by the trial Court on considering the fact that the Court within whose jurisdiction the cause of action arose has every right to entertain the petition filed for maintenance. It further appears that the trial Court has also considered the fact that no cogent and reliable evidence has been adduced by the wife, confirming that the petitioner was a man of substantial means However, the trial Court has considered that there is ample evidence to infer that the petitioner is an able bodied person and is capable of earning and considering the admitted fact that the opposite party No. 1 is the legally married wife of the petitioner and, therefore, it being a legal obligation of the petitioner to provide maintenance to his wife, had awarded the maintenance amount in favour of the wife.
6. Facts and circumstances of the case in the context of the evidence adduced on behalf of both the parties do indicate that that the trial Court has come to a finding that the wife/opposite party No. 1 does have right to claim and receive separate maintenance from her husband, namely the present petitioner, on the ground that tine petitioner has failed and neglected to provide maintenance to her/I do not find any reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the trial Court. There appears no merit in this application. Accordingly, this application is dismissed The order of maintenance, as imposed by the trial Court, is sustained Petitioner is directed to pay the amount of maintenance, as awarded by the trial Court, commencing from within 15 days from the date of this order.
Let the lower Court records be transmitted to the Court below.